When does the Hall of Fame mail the ballots? I assume we should have our 2009 election completed by that day.

Rickey plus two from the backlog.

Reggie Smith, Bucky Walters, Tommy Leach, John McGraw, Dick Redding, Kirby Puckett, Bob Johnson, Gavy Cravath, Luis Tiant, Phil Rizzuto, Hugh Duffy, David Cone and Ken Singleton are the top eligible returnees. All were named on 15 or more ballots.

This may have been addressed dozens of times in the past, so forgive me: Are all future elections intended to be "elect 3"? If not, how do you decide how many are to be elected? Since the HOM has matched the HOF in number of inductees, why not keep that standard? Elect as many players each year as the HOF does.

Of course, you are conducting your future elections before the HOF does, so you can't be sure how many they will elect. I guess you could go with 3 as a default, and then adjust it based on how many the HOF actually elected the year before. If you elect 3 in 2009 and the HOF actually elects 5, then in 2010 you elect 5. If the HOF elects only 1 in 2010, then in 2011 you have an elect-1. Keep trying to track the total inductees as close as possible, even if your adjustments need to lag a year behind.

When does the Hall of Fame mail the ballots?

Late November, I believe. Around the time they publicly announce the ballot.

The proposed schedule in post #156 of the Once We Catch-Up thread has the results announced on November 10, 2008. If we do a runoff it will be a week or two later.

I'm strongly against a runoff - I think the system has worked fine for 111 years . . .

To echo the chicken, will we adjust future ballots to keep HOF and HOM numbers consistent? Or just elect 3 each time? We have a little while to decide.

I'm generally against a runoff, but I do need to reread the thread to refresh the details.

Rickey would be an easy number 1 on my ballot. And by next November, I should have fully integrated DanR's WARP into my system.

We no longer care about matching the Hall of Fame.

If they aren't electing 3 per year at this point, they are changing the standard they've previously established - we aren't going to tighten up now because the current group has decided to be unfair to modern players.

We'll be electing 3 per year for the foreseeable future.

Why is Sasaki on the eligibles list?

We'll be electing 3 per year for the foreseeable future.

Just one caveat to this. We have never averaged three newly-eligibles elected over any long span in history. Our maximum newly-eligibles elected in any 7-year period is 20 (three different spans in the 40s and 50s). For any 10-year period it's 28 (1946-55). For any 22-year period it's 60 (1932-53). Even a span as short as five years, there is only one time we have more than 3 per year (17 total 1932-36). In the past 22 years (1987-2008) the count stands at 47 elected who were newbies in that span.

So electing 3 per year means we will continue to mine the backlog/frontlog. IOW, we can still be "fair to modern players" at a rate slightly under 3 per year, if we want to stay somewhat close to the Hall's number.

Why is Sasaki on the eligibles list?

See recent posts in the Japanses baseball thread.

Rickey plus two from the backlog.

No love for Jesse Orosco? How many other guys led the league in the same category stat for 6 consecutive years?

Will Henderson be on the HOF ballot for 2009?

I'm pretty confident that Sasaki is not going to rate anywhere near as well as Lee Smith. My ballot is going to be Rickey Henderson + 2008 returnees. It looks like Ben Taylor and Vic Willis will sneak onto the bottom because we actually elected 3 people off my ballot last year.

DanR's data is really favorable to Kevin Appier. He's probably my 2nd favorite new candidate.

Well, I guess that sticking to electing three per year keeps the HOMer percentage constant, right?

DL, what data from DanR do you have about pitchers? Is it based on his methodology comments or has he posted some spreadsheets?
Thanks.

I have *very preliminary* numbers for starting pitchers, mulder & scully, which I'd be happy to send you. I have not posted them publicly or spoken much about them yet because there are two big challenges I am still working out: doing my own defensive support adjustments, and figuring out how to account for changing career length norms over time.

For now, I'm dependent on BP's fielding adjustments, which I have begun to doubt in certain cases (in particular I think the fielders on teams like the 1904 Giants are getting credit that should be going to the pitchers). I have a *much* more sophisticated set of data from DRA, but the problem is that they are not yet park-adjusted, so they are really an adjustment for fielding plus a part of the park effect (effect on hits on balls in play) but not other parts (home runs, affect on things like runner advancement, etc.). So figuring out how to avoid double-counting parts of the park effect is a real challenge.

Then on the career length issue, I find that short-career deadball pitchers like Waddell and McGinnity get crunched by translating single season innings totals using IP leaders without making any adjustment for career length, while conversely, long careers like Tommy John's do a bit too well. Figuring out how to get around this conundrum without falling victim to making improper adjustments in response to mere star gluts and droughts has also been phenomenally difficult.

Nonetheless, let me know if you'd like to see them. My numbers show Appier has having a very nice 8-year prime, with 7 All-Star type seasons and two Cy Young type seasons, but not much outside of them. On career value he's no better than Dwight Gooden or Chuck Finley. And as I said, a short career in the 1990's is a bit different than a short career in the 1900's. I won't be voting for Appier, that's for sure. Appier, like Bridges, is a candidate that DL from MN will like more than I do because he uses pitching wins above *average* as part of his ranking system, whereas I do not. That makes him friendlier to lower-IP, higher-ERA+ candidates than I am.

Speaking of which, DL from MN, it might be worth mentioning that by using PWAA, you're actually comparing starting pitchers to an *above* average baseline, since of course the aggregate ERA for starters is higher than the aggregate ERA for relievers.

So electing 3 per year means we will continue to mine the backlog/frontlog. IOW, we can still be "fair to modern players" at a rate slightly under 3 per year, if we want to stay somewhat close to the Hall's number.

I thought we used league-size to scale the elect-me slots per year. We were scheduled to have our first elect-four year in 2011 if I'm not mistaken. Sticking with elect-threes is actually conservative. :-)

This has been discussed before, but I'll echo my opinion here. The HOF has ways of 'correcting itself' when it stays conservative for too long. I think we have to keep our schedule consistent and let them do the feasts and famines.

Wow, is this an instant replay or what? 2008 Rock +2. 2009 Rickey +2.

And I'm with John. Elect 3. If the HoF should continue to refuse to induct modern players that's their problem. We especially don't want to be beholden to their numbers if their numbers should happen to be zero.

Rickey's voting for Rickey.

On some previous thread, I posted my offensive numbers for "Rickey I" and "Rickey II," with the break between the two careers at the moment of the midseason trade that sent him from the Yankees back to the A's.

The way I aggregate the RCAA numbers I use, Rickey I is a pretty close offensive value match for Frank Howard or a war-credit-added version of Charlie Keller. Joe Medwick is another pretty good match. Others in the same value neigborhood include Goose Goslin and Zack Wheat, but they have lower peaks (and longer careers - at least, longer than Rickey I). Of course, Rickey may well have been the best defensive player of this bunch, and the only one with any significant time in CF. Certainly the defensive comparison to Howard ...

So on the whole, I think Rickey I would belong in the HoM, fairly easily.

Rickey II is a weaker candidate - a lower peak, despite the MVP season, a lot of scraggly stuff at the back end, evenentually coming down to drawing walks being about the only thing he could do. Still, Rickey II isn't a bad match for Darryl Strawberry, or Chuck Klein, or Albert Belle, or Rocky Colavito. He's got a peak advantage over Jose Cruz. Give some weight to that MVP year, and I even like him ahead of Bob Johnson. So it's not clear that Rickey II would belong in the HoM, but he's got a case that isn't that easily dismissed.

Of course, Rickey I + Rickey II, and considering the vote we just gave to Raines ... are we looking at unanimity? I've got him ahead of Sam Crawford and behind Frank Robinson. That's a pretty good neigborhood to be in. Hey, it might not even be that hard to persuade the BBWAA.

If they aren't electing 3 per year at this point, they are changing the standard they've previously established - we aren't going to tighten up now because the current group has decided to be unfair to modern players.

It seems to me that if you only elect 3 per year, you are tightening up. Because there are more eligible players now, it seems like the average should be at least 4 per year now, compared to 3 per year in the 1950s, and less than 3 in the 19th century.

It seems to me that if you only elect 3 per year, you are tightening up. Because there are more eligible players now, it seems like the average should be at least 4 per year now, compared to 3 per year in the 1950s, and less than 3 in the 19th century.

You got the right idea, but the details are off. The number of electees per year is discussed here

Four in 1898; two each year from 1899-1905. After that . . .

1: 1906-11, 1913-14, 1916, 1918, 1920, 1923, 1931, 1961

2: 1912, 1915, 1917, 1919, 1921-22, 1924-30, 1932-57, 1959-60, 1962-71, 1973-79, 1981-84, 1986, 1988, 1992

3: 1958, 1972, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1989-91, 1993-2010, 2012-15, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2035, 2038, 2040

4: 2011, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034, 2036-37, 2039, 2041

So, three-a-years were rare until the 80s and weren't regular until 1993. Two-a-year was not regular until the 1920s.

I have Rickey comfortably in the inner circle, right ahead of Frank Robinson and behind Mel Ott.

It's possible the difference between #20 and #24 is more the ranking of Robinson than that of Henderson. In numbers that don't mean anything by themselves, for me: Aaron 448, Ott 383, Robinson 356, Henderson 304, Reggie Jackson 263. And if Bonds had retired after the 1999 season, he'd be at 354.

Bill James invented the notion of "secondary average" in an article in one of his Abstracts in which he was primarily talking about Rickey Henderson. The numerator of this expression is 3*HR+2*3B+2B+BB+SB; that's secondary bases. For a day or two in 2003, Rickey Henderson was the all-time leader in career secondary bases, after he passed Babe Ruth and before he was overtaken by Barry Bonds. Bonds, Henderson, and Ruth are the only players with 5000 career secondary bases. There about about a half-dozen or so with 4000. (And, if I remember correctly, Joe Morgan has 3999.)

Rickey's voting for Rickey

Are players allowed to vote for themselves under the Constitution? How would anyone know?

Are players allowed to vote for themselves under the Constitution? How would anyone know?

2008 Ballut
1-Chuck Finley- won of games grat pichers from 90's
2-Tim Samon- shud have bin all-star
3-Troy Pircivel- big-time closer you cud count on
4-Mike Sosia- grat cacher for dogers in 80's
...

Prelim :)

PHoM: Rickey Henderson, Mark Grace, Hal Newhouser

A little surprised by Grace. I am going to look closer to see if / where I have overvalued him.

1. Rickey Handerson
2. Tommy Leach
3. Reggie Smith
4. Tony Perez
5. Mickey Welch
6. Lou Brock
7. George van Haltren
8. Hugh Duffy
9. Ken Singleton
10. Rusty Staub
11. Norm Cash
12. Bob Johnson
13. Vic Willis
14. Dale Murphy
15. Kirby Puckett

16-20. Redding, Bonds, Grace, Streeter, Monroe
21-25. Grimes, Mullane, Cepeda, Strong, Gleason
26-30. Greene, Robinson, Souell, John, Ware

"you're actually comparing starting pitchers to an *above* average baseline"

Even better

At LF I have Bonds, Musial, and Williams ahead of Rickey.

Rusty,

I vaguely remember an old NgL pitcher named Sam (?) Streeter...? And is it Ted (?) Strong? Was he a NgL pitcher, too? Then, who are Greene, Robinson, Souell and Ware?

And I'll give ya this. Mark Grace will be ahead of them on my ballot, too.

And I'm with John. Elect 3. If the HoF should continue to refuse to induct modern players that's their problem. We especially don't want to be beholden to their numbers if their numbers should happen to be zero.

It seems to me that if you only elect 3 per year, you are tightening up. Because there are more eligible players now, it seems like the average should be at least 4 per year now, compared to 3 per year in the 1950s, and less than 3 in the 19th century.

OK, but this all misses my poorly-made point in #9. Electing 3 or 4 or 12 per year does nothing to ensure fairness to modern players. In practice, what it has meant in recent election is that we scoop more of the dregs of the backlog. In the past 14 elections we elected 10 players who hung around the ballot more than 25 years: Lundy, Oms, Browning, Bresnahan, Jones, Beckley, Roush, Fox, Keller and Trouppe.

Thus, the actual effect of electing three per year has been to be "fair" to the backlog. Are we doing this at the expense of the modern guys? Are we repeating the BBWAA errors of omission (on a lesser scale)?

I should have concluded by saying this.

If we used an alternating 3-2 election schedule, i.e., 2.5 per year, we would still be more than keeping up with all the deserving modern players, based on our recent election history and looking at the next four years of new candidates. We should probably elect 2 in 2009, 3 in 2010, 2 in 2011 and 3 in 2012.

As a side benefit, it keeps us more in line with the Hall's total, assuming no big dump-in by them.

Last 20 Years, Number of New Candidates From Each Year Who Are in the HoM

1989 - 4
1990 - 2
1991 - 2
1992 - 3
1993 - 3
1994 - 3
1995 - 2
1996 - 1
1997 - 1
1998 - 4
1999 - 4
2000 - 1
2001 - 2
2002 - 3
2003 - 2
2004 - 2
2005 - 2
2006 - 1
2007 - 3
2008 - 1
Total - 46

Thus, the actual effect of electing three per year has been to be "fair" to the backlog. Are we doing this at the expense of the modern guys? Are we repeating the BBWAA errors of omission (on a lesser scale)?

I appreciate Dan's concern. But.

The fallacy in this is that it sort of presumes that the HoM project and the HoM will end/cease to exist as of 2009-2010-2011-2012-or some time in the more or less foreseeable future. It is possible, certainly, that as of 2012 we will have more HoMers from the '20s and/or '30s and/or '60s than from the '80s and/or '90s. And if that is the end of it, then we don't have balance.

But theoretically (and probably, I would agree, only theoretically) as the project continues into the more distant future, it is likely IMO that that balance would be redressed. Let's just say for the sake of argument that we elect the next tier of the backlog that Joe listed above

Reggie Smith, Bucky Walters, Tommy Leach, John McGraw, Dick Redding, Kirby Puckett, Bob Johnson, Gavy Cravath, Luis Tiant, Phil Rizzuto, Hugh Duffy, David Cone and Ken Singleton

• There's a couple 19C (though, I would note that both are from the '90s and there's nobody from the '70s or '80s),
• three dead-ball (one NgL),
• two from the Golden Age,
• one from the truly under-represented WWII and integration eras,
• two-and-a-half men from the early expansion era (Reggie2, Tiant and half of Singleton), and
• two-and-a-half men from the latter expansion era (Kirby, Cone and the other half of Singleton).

Now, it's true, I'd have to analyze the deeper backlog in order to really make my point stick. But even this distribution, while not closing the gap in raw numbers between, say, the 1890s and the 1990s, would as a percentage do that, and in raw numbers would begin to redress our over-enthusiasm for the Golden Age--i.e. 3 players from 1920-1950 versus 5 from 1965-1999--if only slightly.

Okay, on second thought, let's go further--into a second baker's dozen of backloggers, making a total of 26. No way would we elect all these guys, and even if we did, not before 2025. But just for the sake of argument, now we're talking about:

17 12 Tony Perez 182 11 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18 19 Bus Clarkson 177 13 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1
19 39 Dizzy Dean 172 11 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
20 31 Vic Willis 169 10 2 2 4 1 1
21 22 Tommy Bridges 161 10 1 4 1 1 1 1 1
22 23 Dave Concepción 157 13 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
23 28 Don Newcombe 150 14 2 3 1 2 2 3 1
24 24 Burleigh Grimes 150 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
25 18 George Van Haltren 147 9 1 1 1 4 1 1
26 33 Lou Brock 142 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
27 27 Mickey Welch 141 10 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
28 32 Dale Murphy 135 12 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2
29 29 Rick Reuschel

Now we've got (including the first baker's dozen):

• Four 19C, three from the '90s and just one from before
• Four-and-a-half dead-ballers (one NgLer and half of Grimes)
• Four from the Golden Age, three of them from the under-represented category of pitchers BTW
• Three from the WWII and integration eras, one and a half of them from the under-represented post-NgL era/pre-full integration era for blacks
• Six from the early expansion era, including half of Reuschal (insert comment here)
• Four from the late expansion era, including the other 250 pounds of Reuschel

Now ten guys 1965-1999 versus four 1865-1899. Ten guys 1965-1999 versus eight guys 1920-1960.

So it's a start. And you all know that there would be violent arguments and civil disobedience and air strikes and the whole deal in opposition to the idea of electing more guys from the Golden Age. So we would theoretically be pushing toward balance, though even theoretically none of us would ever live to see the balance that we wanted. Only Frankie Frisch could live that dream.

Well, look at the past 20 years. If we should somehow elect everyone you mention that debuted 1989-2008 (I count 8 guys) that still brings the total to 54, or 2.7 per year. This matches our historic maximum for any 20-year span (1934-53 and 1939-58).

So, we've still never averaged 3 per year from any long-term span and seem unlikely to do so for a very long time. Continuing to elect three per year will gradually lower the floor of the HoM.

will gradually lower the floor of the HoM.

Well, at least we're doing it in a systematic way, one player at a time, rather than reaching down 50 slots and then trying not to fill in. If over the next 3-4-5 years we elect

Reggie Smith, Bucky Walters, Tommy Leach, John McGraw, Dick Redding,

I don't see how that lowers the floor beyond what you'd need a calipers to measure. Personally for me not a one of them actually lowers the floor, until we un-elect Ken Boyer, anyway,

Will Henderson be on the HOF ballot for 2009?

Decided to answer my own question:


From the Hall of Fame site:

2009: Steve Avery, Jay Bell, John Burkett, David Cone, Mike Bordick, Ron Gant, Mark Grace, Rickey Henderson, Denny Neagle, Dean Palmer, Dan Plesac, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams, Mike Williams

I vaguely remember an old NgL pitcher named Sam (?) Streeter...? And is it Ted (?) Strong? Was he a NgL pitcher, too? Then, who are Greene, Robinson, Souell and Ware?

Sam Streeter - NgL pitcher from 1919 to 1936. He ended with a ~record of 117-75, 12th all-time.
Ted Strong - NgL player who appeared in the East-West All-Star Game at three different positions. He led the Kansas City Monarchs to four consecutive pennants (39-42). He also played for the Harlem Globetrotters.
Joe Greene - NgL All-star catcher from 39 to 47. He was a regular catcher for Satchel Paige for part of that time. He was also a decorated WWII vet.
Neil Robinson - NgL Outfielder from 38 to 48. He played in 8 all-star games, compiling a .476 batting average and an .810 slugging percentage, second only to Buck Leonard.
Herb 'Baldy' Souell - Longtime 3B for the Kansas City Monarchs. He played with Hilton Smith, Buck O'Neil, Ted Strong etc.
Archie Ware - Longtime 1B for the Cleveland Buckeyes along with Quincy Trouppe. Also played for Panama in the Carribean World Series.

I'd love to see a systematic accounting of approx how many Negro League players were as good as the equivalent MLB replacement level each year.

I don't see how that lowers the floor beyond what you'd need a calipers to measure. Personally for me not a one of them actually lowers the floor, until we un-elect Ken Boyer, anyway,

Marc, your approach is based on the assumption that the HoM is rife with errors. That, over time, we'll gradually "get it right" as regards any particular era.

I prefer to think that, right now, we've elected the best 234 players to be had; that we're not rife with errors, that the right guys have been elected. That the worst players from this era are of the same quality as the worst players from any era. I think this is closer to the truth.

Right now we have 46 who debuted in the past 20 years, 2.3 per year. To raise that number, to continue to usher in backloggers, means lowering the floor of HoM quality of player. Are we sure that's the direction we should be going?

Now that we've approximated the HOF's number of members, are we sure that's the direction we should be going? Or is it better to aim to maintain our current minimum standard and try to elect only as many players in upcoming elections as meet that standard? Certainly, in the next four elections, three per year will continue to lower our standard.

I don't know if that's good/bad, right/wrong. I'm just sayin'.

Certainly, in the next four elections, three per year will continue to lower our standard.

Since we have 11 months to discuss this, then I might ask what happened to all the new candidates? If we inducted two-a-year in the 40s and 50s, and now there are almost twice as many teams as there were then and yet now we 'only' induct three a year... well how come that isn't working out for us?

Is there a flukey glut of old guys still active in 2007 who'd been hanging on for milestones that will flood the ballot in five years? Are we underrating borderline 80s and 90s guys? I thought we had been inducting our share of post-expansion guys. Does the 'math' imply that we need to be inducting more? How does the HOM-ers per era histogram currently look?

Rusty - you seem to have a much higher opinion of those players than anyone. In fact, you seem to be the only member of the electorate who has any opinion of them at all? Give us more. Advocate for them. Try to make us have our own opinions, too. Seriously. You have all year to tackle it.

How does the HOM-ers per era histogram currently look?

Here's the whole chart, excerpted in #35, of HoMers coming on the ballot each year. The third column is 10-year total.

1898 15
1899 7
1900 2
1901 1
1902 3
1903 2 20 (1899-1908)
1904 1 15
1905 1 13
1906 0 14
1907 2 12
1908 1 11 (1904-1913)
1909 2 13
1910 0 14
1911 2 17
1912 1 17
1913 1 16
1914 3 15
1915 2 17
1916 3 17
1917 2 19
1918 0 22 (1914-1923)
1919 1 19
1920 2 18
1921 2 16
1922 3 15
1923 4 16
1924 0 15
1925 1 13
1926 1 11
1927 1 11
1928 1 10 (1924-1933)
1929 0 17
1930 0 17
1931 0 19
1932 3 19
1933 3 18
1934 7 21
1935 1 24
1936 3 27
1937 1 25
1938 0 27
1939 3 23
1940 3 22
1941 3 23
1942 1 25
1943 5 28 (1939-1948)
1944 3 27
1945 0 27
1946 4 25
1947 3 27
1948 3 27
1949 2 26
1950 3 28 (1946-1955)
1951 1 26
1952 3 27
1953 5 26
1954 2 26
1955 2 24
1956 2 24
1957 4 24
1958 2 20
1959 2 20
1960 1 20
1961 1 19
1962 3 15
1963 1 14 (1959-1968)
1964 2 15
1965 2 17
1966 1 18
1967 0 17
1968 1 17
1969 3 17
1970 3 17
1971 2 16
1972 2 18
1973 1 19
1974 2 17
1975 2 17
1976 0 17
1977 2 19
1978 2 22 (1974-1983)
1979 1 20
1980 3 18
1981 2 19
1982 4 17
1983 4 16
1984 0 19
1985 0 18
1986 1 18
1987 0 17
1988 1 16
1989 4 19
1990 2 21
1991 2 21
1992 3 22
1993 3 25
1994 3 25
1995 2 24
1996 1 24
1997 1 24
1998 4 23
1999 4 22
2000 1 22
2001 2 22
2002 3 24
2003 2 21 (1999-2008)
2004 2
2005 2
2006 1
2007 3
2008 1

or to look at it another way:
2008

HOMers per year, minimum 10 G per player to qualify, or equivalent
(NeL in parentheses refers to any non-MLB-credited seasons for non-white players)

1850s - 0/0/0/0/0/0/1/1/1/1.......................................... avg 0.4
1860s - 2/2/2/2/3/2/4/4/6/8...........................................avg 3.5
1870s - 9/10/12/12/13/13/13/12/13/17............................ avg 12.4
1880s - 18/20/22/22/24/25/26/25/27/27...........................avg 23.6 (with 0.4 NeL)
1890s - 31/33/32/29/24/25/24/23/23/24...........................avg 26.8 (with 1.5 NeL)
1900s - 23/27/27/25/27/28/27/28/29/29...........................avg 27.0 (with 3.5 NeL)
1910s - 30/29/28/31/30/30/34/28/26/28...........................avg 29.4 (with 7.4 NeL)
1920s - 30/33/37/39/44/47/50/49/49/46...........................avg 42.4 (with 16.2 NeL)
1930s - 44/46/47/45/42/41/41/42/39/41...........................avg 42.8 (with 14.6 NeL)
1940s - 44/43/39/28/20/22/34/34/34/28...........................avg 32.6 (with 9.4 NeL)
1950s - 28/29/26/28/29/33/34/31/31/32...........................avg 30.1
1960s - 32/33/34/35/35/35/35/35/37/38.......................... avg 35.0
1970s - 40/39/42/42/43/43/42/41/39/38...........................avg 41.1
1980s - 40/41/43/41/40/38/38/34/31/27...........................avg 37.2


I'll be refining this over the course of the year; probably you'll see moves of a tenth here and a tenth there..

What were the details of the 'number of inductees per year' calculation? I saw that it roughly tracked the number of MLB teams (with perhaps a five-year lag), but I am unfamiliar with how it was calculated exactly.

Was there an intention to deliberately create a backlog that catches up near the end? That would be the scenario that would imply that we slow down a bit. Certainly a 19th century backlog was around for a while.

Thanks for the histograms, guys.

Howie, do you have a list of HOM-ers who lost time due to war? Some guys are easy (DiMaggio, Mize, Reese, Williams), but I suppose it can get complicated with the very young (Spahn) or the very old (Lyons). Even more complicated, there's also odd cases like debateably late starts (Kiner?, JRobinson?) and even possibly who got career extended by the war (I think Foxx wasn't in the service in 1943 and likely would have stayed retired if not for the war). I guess I like the list as is, but I'm wondering if there is some other number that could be parenthetically listed.

I think treating the Negro Leagues as a de-facto expansion explains our numbers. We treated the leagues as expanded in the 20s and 30s and shrunk them in the 40s and 50s. Our numbers have gone up with subsequent MLB expansions, and the 1980s aren't done yet.

464 players were worthy enough to gather at least 1/6 of a 15th place vote on our collective ballots throughout the project. Which means that over half of all players to receive a vote were elected to the HOM. That seems stunning to me, although maybe it shouldn't.